Re: [alpine-devel] abuild vs. makepkg
Yep, this isn't a good proposal: effort saved would be a teeny fraction of
total effort in the best case scenario. I guess I didn't mean for it to be
taken as a serious proposal, just a noob trying to pick the brains of the
real devs. Thanks for taking the time to set me straight.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:07 PM, 7heo <7heo_at_mail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2017 9:49 PM, Dan Anderson <dan.hillier.anderson_at_gmail.com>
> > Thanks for your reply 7heo. I knew makepkg used bash to invoke the
> install scripts, but I did not realize makepkg was actually *written in
> bash* until just now. Fair point! Definitely explains not using makepkg
> > That said, reading the Alpine / Arch wiki pages on the two package
> formats, the packaging description isn't particularly system-dependent,
> especially when the setup and installation are being deferred to shell
> scripts (bash/ash not making a difference in the packages I've seen).
> Makepkg doesn't have any dependency on systemd, or the rest of the Arch
> base system, as far as I can tell, so that argument is a little overstated.
> > In answer to your question, why not both alpine and arch :D ? Maybe it's
> a little greedy to hope to maintain one package and get another free, but I
> figured I'd ask and see what the barriers were like.
> > Dan
> > On Jun 26, 2017 2:48 PM, "7heo" <7heo_at_mail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 26, 2017 8:38 PM, Dan Anderson <dan.hillier.anderson_at_gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> > Just got started using alpine; I've been having a good time. However,
> I'm curious about the design of abuild: the APKBUILD format is (nearly) a
> direct clone of Arch's MAKEPKG, but with small incompatibilities.
> >> >
> >> > What was the reason behind not just using makepkg as it was (missing
> functionality?), and would patches aimed at improving compatibility be
> worth-while? Reducing the friction porting, say, AUR packages to alpine
> seems useful to me.
> >> That cannot happen without making Alpine arch. So without adopting
> systemd, bash, and many more software it won't happen. If you want arch,
> why don't you use arch? :)
> >> Best
> >> 7heo
> Well, the argument isn't really overstated no, because the only use of
> "reducing the friction" as you put it would be to reuse manifests that rely
> on systemd unit files, and other software we do not use. Since there will
> be work anyway to adapt that, your proposal isn't going to reduce much
> friction. That's why not both. If we wanted arch, we'd be using arch, and
> Alpine wouldn't exist.
Received on Mon Jun 26 2017 - 16:36:40 UTC